Is Philosophy useful at all, has it achieved anything?
back to fucking >>>/sci/
>>8018348
What board did you think you were browsing?
No it's an intellectual deficiency. People have known this for a long long long long (x99) time
The only good philosophy that is consistent with all sciences is anarcho-naturalism.
>>8018337
It gave us Nietzsche and thus Hitler, so I'd say yes
>>8018370
Hitler destroyed the white race
>>8018355
I think he was trying to make a funny. Since basically all of /sci/ shits on philosophy almost daily at this point.
>>8018337
No. It's nice to think about in your spare time but it shouldn't go beyond that. People who make it their life's work are almost as bad as people whose only ambition is to excel at a game or sport.
People here are cringe worthy.
Yes, of course, ideas of Kant and Hume have directly influenced the state system, for example. Classification of labor, the notion of bureaucrat as such, school structure, Marxism, ... this was all shaped by philosophers.
Politics is the manifestation of philosophy irl.
So yes.
>>8018337
Can the guy on pic be considered the iron man and elon musk at the same time?
Yeah it makes brainlets blame their shitty decisions on fate
>>8018370
>Hitler
Back to your containment board, you autistic meme-baby.
>>8018417
That's my main problem with /sci/. There is a huge circle jerk against any field that isn't the field they got into.
>>8018337
Philosophy lead us to create the scientific method and the various proof methods in math, so yeah it is pretty useful. Postmodern philosophy is a pile of shit though.
That dude read Wittgenstein
It's offers different perspectives just like science does.. no? I like Eastern philosophy specifically Alan Watts interpretations. Finding humour in the absurdity that is life and understanding the human condition. I like astrophysics a little more though.
Philosophy is basically masturbation, it's scratching an itch, progress isn't even the target.
>>8018633
>There is a huge circle jerk against any field that isn't the field they got into.
This is how 4chan achieves equality; shitposting all value out of any social system or process. You didn't manage to say the magic sentence that would get that process to stop, so you failed. Welcome to the shitheap, population: You.
Come, /sci/. Let us circleantijerk until specialists can't stand it anymore.
>>8018337
of course. It allows each of us to form our own views and opinions. Building your views through thought based on the conclusions of great minds from many periods in our history is enlightening. What do you do? how do you live your life? what do you focus on?... thinking of these things that have no concrete answer is philosophical thought. we obviously all do this. It is obviously hugely important and plays a massive role in all of our lives. This type of thought is what led me into a field allowing me to make a physical and immediate improvement on society no matter how infinitesimally small.
>>8018977
>progress isn't even the target
Not inherently, no, but thinking at all makes you a lot more attractive to me than a cow. Whether that ever pans out is secondary to your willingness and ability to engage in it.
I like those
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsgAsw4XGvU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9JCwkx558o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0zmfNx7OM4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5JGE3lhuNo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHWbZmg2hzU
>>8018337
It gave us science and mathematics dumbfuck
>>8018337
>has it achieved anything?
Yes, a lot, but all of it was in the ancient or recent past.
>Is Philosophy useful at all
In modern-day society, not really. Philosophy helped give us science, but the intellectuals that used to be great philosophers are the scientists of today, who dabble in philosophical matters that can never be definitively answered in their free time for mental masturbation. If Plato and Aristotle were born in our society, they would be scientists with an interest in certain fields of philosophy, not the opposite.
>>8018370
>nietzsche made hitler meme
seriously....
>>8019007
these are just autistic undergrads, not specialists
>>8018977
what philosophical questions do you have in mind here and what is it about them that makes you think answering them is not about progress?
a lot of good shit has its roots on philosophy
>science
But so does a lot of bad shit
>not science
>>8018977
>implying math has an end goal
>>8019088
>>/lit/
>>8018337
No, it's just filler when you can't think of something productive to do.
/thread
Maybe the problem with modern philosophy is that because subjects have branched out so much that studying pure philosophy will not give you clear insight into the modern philosophical problems that rise in many fields.
>>8018337
Well, it was the original science. Like back to antiquity, natural philosophers (pre-Socratic) tried to explain shit like what things are made out of. Thanks to Democritus, we get the idea of the atom. That's just an example. Famous mathematician guy Descartes was a philosopher albeit a shitty one.
Philosophy is rooted in science and math. Kind of like the unsuccessful older brother who tries to be a pseudo-spiritual hipster, which are most of people who go into philosophy in modernity are. Either that or religious nuts (like Jesuits) who try to get their mix of that and theology.
Tl;dr it is useful and at the same time is not
>>8018337
2 down vote accepted
Hume is agnostic about causality, only asserting that no conclusive evidence for it exists, but let's say that he would humor you and defend the negative position. First, by his analysis we do not know if observed causes are really causes, and even assuming we are right about that there is an obvious selection bias at play. Our observing evolved to aid our survival, we benefit from focus on repeatable patterns that can be relied upon. We do not focus on why the temperature is 74.53 degrees and not 74.49, or why dropped spoon landed where it did, or why somebody has a birthmark. That we could find out if we looked is merely an optimistic extrapolation. Eventually it runs into the issue of absolute precision for systems sensitive to perturbations, and there can be no precision beyond quantum limits. Motion of planets is an exception, not a rule, and in most cases we test causation in tightly controlled experiments, in very improbable environments. But even then we never observed supposed cause determine its supposed effect in every detail, not even once, sufficient cause is a pure idealization.
But even aside from that Hume could say that no explanation is owed here. You seem to be running a particular case of Putnam's no miracles argument: it would be a miracle if all this regularity occurred without the underlying causation. Well, let's assume that regularity is a very good test for causation, namely the probabilities of false negatives (observing no regularity conditioned on causation) and false positives (observing regularity conditioned on no causation) are very low. What can we say about probability of causation conditioned on observed regularity? Intuitively, it seems that it should be very high, and this intuition explains the appeal of no miracles arguments.
>>8020347
But this intuition is flawed, in fact any value, including arbitrarily small one, is consistent with the assumptions. The reason is that we do not know the "base rate", the prior probability of causation before observation, nor do we have any way of making sense of it. For that matter, we do not even have a good reason for asserting low rate of false positives, because causation is certainly not the only mechanism that produces regularity.
Since you are into Hume's reasoning and counterarguments you may find Howson's Hume's Problem an interesting read. In particular, he discusses the base rate fallacy in detail.
Philosophy is science for retards, you try to study some undefined concept with undefined ideas.
This thread is pathetic.
>has it achieved anything
It birthed every single science, and the scientific method.
STEMfags who think philosophy is pointless clearly have no idea what it is.
>>8020592
>It birthed every single science, and the scientific method.
this is not quite true, but yeah
epistemology is neat
What did science achieved in the last few years? Not much I guess
>inb4 obscure theories
>>8018337
Logic is a subfield of philosophy and it has given us some neat results like that not all functions are computable. Stuff like turing machines etc are studied in logic, they hold some neat properties.
>>8020592
Philosophy became useless with the advent of the scientific method.
>>8020779
You don't understand philosophy.
>>8020784
Enlighten me.
>>8020794
read a book
>>8020779
scientific method is part of philosophy
>>8020850
[spoiler]Well said[/spoiler]
>>8018337
Of course.
>Science itself came out of Philosophy.
>Mathematics and Logic are interconnected.
>Cosmology is basically a philosophical study of Physics and Astronomy using scientific method.
>Society is shaped by philosophical ideas which now makes the bulk of Politics, Economics, Sociology and all humanities.
>While science after Isaac Newton took the leading role of Philosophy in discussing the natural world, we still need philosophical thought right now for humanities (and this is ultimately connected to science, for instance, in ethical debate over emerging technologies in this century).
>>8020779
You don't know what either science or philosophy are
Revision of the logical foundations of mathematics (and thus all of science) was mostly the work of philosopher/mathematician "hybrids" such as Bolzano, Frege, Whitehead, and Russell. The latter two's seminal work "Principia Mathematica" laid the groundwork for modern logic and allowed people such as Goedel to make further fundamental discoveries in that area later.
>>8019108
Nietzsche's and Hitler's ideologies are literally identical.
"Führer" is just Hitlers word for "Übermensch"
>the science came from philosophy maymay
>muh natural philosopher
Philosophy is broad, and comparing ancient philosophy when we were still at an early age in many subjects to modern philosophy is a strawman of the main issue. We started using the scientific methos (which isn't even well defined) because we saw that if we focused on on watching patterns in nature and try to recreate it, we could weave a system were many things fit together. Newton's "philosophy" of nature was created based on the empirical observation made by Keplers, galileo, toricceli, etc and not on pure metaphysical reasoning. That's why you don't read about his postulates in your typical phil class. Also, because philosophy deals with thing more primitive than science, doesn't fucking mean that science is a subset of philosophy in the same way that just because logic is fundamental for math, doesn't mean that math IS logic.
>>8021025
"Führer" means literally "leader" in German (just as "duce" in Italian, the latter being the title Mussolini used).
>>8021077
it's actually more like father. strange i know.
